FBI recommend no charges against Hillary!

a reply to: Willtell I thought you supported Hillary regardless?????

originally posted by: roadgravel
I would like to know if there is a connection between the Clinton Foundation and this mail server being on he same box or network. At least that is what I thought was the case. Maybe that is meaningful.

That issue is still under investigation.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Man, this .. sucks.


I just cannot stand her smugness, and her smugness is going to reach ridiculously high levels after this. That is for sure.

You know what continually amazes me? I am a European socialist (by American standards) and yet I would be inclined to vote Republican, had I had the right to vote in the U.S. - in an election where the Republican candidate is portrayed a deranged lunatic by even the most right leaning media outlets.

As much as I loved the sax playing Bill, I loathe the elitist Hillary. She just oozes contempt for .. for anyone and anything, really, that she considers being beneath her.

Like, say, the law.

Happy inDependence Day, guys..

Right? This announcement the day after the United States' Birthday. I come from a Liberal Democratic military family and I now because of the fact that I'm more or less a Libertarian and that I believe in the United States Constitution I could be considered a right winger. Lost in the wheels of confusion.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

She will be the next (First female) president of the united states of a America!

Good-luck!

Bwahahahahahaha!

a reply to: CynConcepts

I love the way you think.

How about you?

For me this is an easy question because it really doesn't matter (in the conventional sense). I live in a very, VERY blue state. My state is going for Hillary. I'll still vote though just so I can have my tiny say and also because there are always local elections that I care about.

But to answer your question. If the election were tomorrow I'd vote for Trump. I'm not thrilled about it. I don't think he will do what he promises he will do (and in some ways that is good and in other ways that is bad). He is more of a jerk that I would like him to be but in essence he is a business person and more specifically he is a builder. To that end I admit I'm biased because I get (in a very general way) where he is coming from and I can appreciate the business sense. (I couldn't stand many of Bloomberg's social policies but he too was a businessman and NYC did terrific under his leadership).

If I could look past Hillary's corruption (which I sincerely can't) I simply can't find anything to get behind. She was elected to office in NY simply because she was Bill's wife. She did NOTHING of note here. I'm not an international policy expert but I can only see how the world had gotten much more chaotic starting with her time as Secretary of State. I know it's been beaten to death so I wont do it here but Arab Spring? Really? Arab Spring? Libya? Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Benghazi? (Benghazi is another dead horse being beaten but that little video story was very telling... as was her "What difference does it make?" statements).

Now... to the Libertarians. I can tell you that I have always been a registered independent and have never been able to vote in a primary. Although I tend to vote with the Republicans (excluding some local elections) I have always found myself more closely in line with the libertarian set of ideas/ideals. I actually wait for the day when a libertarian will come around that has more than a snowballs chance in heck in being a serious candidate. Unfortunately, the libertarians haven't found that person yet.

As it pertains to this conversation.... I'd never heard of Johnson before reading about him here on ATS several months ago. I looked into him and sadly.... I wasn't impressed. Recently I started watching some videos of him and sadly, I have to admit he's kind of a, well, a goofball. I know this may or may not be fair but if someone is going to win the presidency they need to have an aura of authority about them. Johnson lacks this. Far too often when he is asked "What would a President Johnson do about ___________?" he starts off by repeating the question then has a lackluster answer. Sort of an "I don't know but we would sure find out if we get there" type of answer.

This actually brings me to a general point that I mention to some of my hard-core libertarian friends. I think it is SO EASY to say things like, "I'd end the war on drugs" but nobody seems to say how. I agree that the "war" on drugs was a ridiculous thing to begin but the present time doesn't exist in a vacuum. Are we to simply wake up tomorrow and say, "All drugs are legal now!"...? What would that look like? Stuff would get out of control almost immediately. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when I speak with my sincerely libertarian friends I remind them that it is easy to make claims that (in the foreseeable future) they will NEVER have to prove either true or false. It allows a wide range of claims to be made.

Sorry, I just realized I rambled all over the place here.

I would like to circle back to my starting point and restate that I like the way you think.

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
a reply to: queenofswords

Well, it's either because both parties are simply two sides of the same coin OR the GOP doesn't want to preside over the coming #storm.

What #%@% storm are you referring to? Don't you think that Trump will save us?

Director Comey’s press conference was a study in contradiction. But it was also an example of how divorcing an inquiry from its context leads to indefensible results. Comey found that Hillary Clinton quite plainly mishandled classified information and exposed the United States to a heightened risk of national-security harm. But he forgot to explain the reason she did so — to keep her business, both public and private, beyond the reach of public scrutiny. She did all of this to avoid congressional oversight, FOIA requests, and accountability to the public. Comey’s decision simply ensures that she was successful in avoiding that accountability.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: AMPTAH

Are you talking about Clinton or Trump? I mean, I wouldn’t trust Trump with a boomerang since it’d come straight back and land in his arse.

Well, we can write the FBI off as totally corrupt, along with the entire Justice Department and the SCOTUS as well as all our elected officials. Luckily, with corruption comes incompetence and that will lead to infighting and them offing each other when they screw up. It should be a pretty good body count and let's hope some get scared and start ratting the bosses out.

originally posted by: Willtell
One thing is for sure the meeting of Clinton and the AG was a setup.


The AG knew that if the FBI didn’t recommend an indictment then the only way Hillary was going to get indicted was through the Justice department.

Clinton obviously knew the FBI would recommend no indictment.

So he knew then that the only way Hillary could get indicted was through the Justice department

So what does he do?

Meets with the AG and creates that scandal


Then the AG says she will only follow the recommendation of the FBI since she is tainted by the meeting

She obviously knew the FBI was going to recommend no indictment.

So now Hillary can NEVER be indicted

The meeting was a setup to get Hillary off

Not really, she was not charged, trialed and found innocent, therefore she can be charged later if something comes up, like an unreasonable prosecutor. lol.


Funny how Comey took it upon himself to make the DOJ's call for them.

I suppose Bill won't be charged with obstruction of justice or witness/evidence tampering. lol!

a reply to: neo96

I'm going to give you credit here I didn't think of this. But your right Obama would never have gotten on that plane with Hillary without knowing if she was going to be prosecuted. He wouldn't take the risk to campaign for her. That makes this even more interesting doesn't it??

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Hmmm, interesting chain of thought.

What if Comey knew that Hillary would never be convicted in the current administration, so he did his best to expose her lies in the press conference, then left this go for now to look into later.

He gave Trump some ammo to do his best with.

When Trump is elected, he can appoint a new Attorney General, and Hillary will get the trial she deserves.
And there would be no Obama standing by to pardon her either.

Possibly?

.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Hmmm, interesting chain of thought.

What if Comey knew that Hillary would never be convicted in the current administration, so he did his best to expose her lies in the press conference, then left this go for now to look into later.

He gave Trump some ammo to do his best with.

When Trump is elected, he can appoint a new Attorney General, and Hillary will get the trial she deserves.
And there would be no Obama standing by to pardon her either.

Possibly?

.

It certainly is possible as it is left hanging, now.

The NSA NIA or whoever hands out security clearances can certainly revoke hers, given the way he said she handled the classified emails.

So it is still way early, only been a couple hours.

Lot's of political fallout can happen against her, obviously.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I admire your optimism!!

Trump right now has just seen how the game of hardball is played in DC. When the FBI and DOJ can be compromised by a political Dynasty; he must be wondering if he's up to the task to take on the heavy weights.

He needs political support now. Does he have any? Who? He pissed off the very allies he needs NOW.

Politics doesn't have a rule book like the NFL.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: BlueAjah

I admire your optimism!!

Trump right now has just seen how the game of hardball is played in DC. When the FBI and DOJ can be compromised by a political Dynasty; he must be wondering if he's up to the task to take on the heavy weights.

He needs political support now. Does he have any? Who? He pissed off the very allies he needs NOW.

Politics doesn't have a rule book like the NFL.

If "political support" is that thing we see keeping Hillary Clinton going, I am glad that is not behind Trump.

We need to get away from the type of activity that constructed the Clinton dynasty.

So, I'll be happy if Trump just does it his way, with the support of the people, and the heck with the politicians.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: BlueAjah

I admire your optimism!!

Trump right now has just seen how the game of hardball is played in DC. When the FBI and DOJ can be compromised by a political Dynasty; he must be wondering if he's up to the task to take on the heavy weights.

He needs political support now. Does he have any? Who? He pissed off the very allies he needs NOW.

Politics doesn't have a rule book like the NFL.

We need to get away from the type of activity that constructed the Clinton dynasty.

So, I'll be happy if Trump just does it his way, with the support of the people, and the heck with the politicians.

The Clinton dynasty was constructed by the Military Industrial, Corporate banking cabal driven by corruption and greed just like Trump inc.

Reality is a cruel mistress. Trump can't change her; it's to late for that. Besides, he doesn't want to...it's his legacy as well.

Don't forget the govt. and politics is a business, owned and operated by businessmen. Trump is a business man...which path do you think he will take?

Even if Hillary was indicted and went on trial she would never spend a day in prison. They would use every legal maneuver her expansive legal team could devise and the trial would drag on for a very long time. By not pursuing this case the FBI can (hopefully) devote more time and energy into doing something more productive like catching terrorists.

If they can spin this into Hillary the Superwoman that beat the FBI and made the Republicans look stupid then this ruling may backfire and increase support for Hillary. Of course the truth is of little importance in politics.

Rand Paul.

Today the FBI announced Hillary Clinton violated classified procedures, carelessly and recklessly endangered national security - and had done so repeatedly, over 100 times.

The FBI then announced she would face no charges. This is an outrage and the rule of law has been turned upside down.
This weekend, we learned former President Clinton met with the Obama Administration Attorney general - the FBI director's boss - in private.

Three days later the FBI director announces no charges are being brought against Hillary Clinton.
The appearance is terrible. The decision is astounding. People have gone to jail for less severe breaches of classified information and national security.

Today Director Comey and the Obama Administration Department of Justice made it clear to the American people, and all those being unfairly prosecuted by the DOJ, that there is no accountability, no justice, and the Clintons are allowed to live by a different set of rules.
This is a loss for the rule of law and further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system.

www.facebook.com...

This is a spit in our faces. Now Americans know for sure that our entire government is corrupt, and no longer answers to the People.

How dam privilege these very special people in our government are to exempt themselves from the Laws of our Land.

I find it disgusting and I do not respect my government, and I do not trust them. That's ok, because evil always end up destroying itself in the end.

originally posted by: LuFri
By not pursuing this case the FBI can (hopefully) devote more time and energy into doing something more productive like catching terrorists.

You mean, creating then entrapping staged terrorist plots....?

It's funny to see all the people sitting around waiting for her to be charged. Get a clue people only one of two things happen to people that know as much as Hillary they either walk free or wind up dead. And right now TPTB has too much use for her to wind up in a casket.